User talk:DanTD/Archive. September - October 2020

Nomination of Canopy express for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canopy express is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Canopy express until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at Canopy express shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an arrogant thing to do, Guy. Using two of your own user pages to dupe me into an edit war. The first problem is that you're ignoring the content of those links. The second is that you ignore the fact that I didn't use them as reference links. I tried to explain the benefit of those links to you in a peaceful manner, and instead, you snuck another user page to invalidate my efforts. From this point on, remember this is a problem that you created, not I.
 * Also for the record, I agree with your invalidation of many of the other sources you mentioned on your administrator's page. -User:DanTD (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know there are two Guys here, right? Me (JzG) and ? We are different people. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Originally I thought so, but I started to suspect the two of you might be one in the same and using the other as WP:Sockpuppetry, and possibly using administrator's status to flaunt that rule. I apologize for this, but not the edits. I still believe them to be valid. -User:DanTD (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit where the WMF listed my name as being one of the users who have proven their identity. (I needed to prove my ID because I was on the commission that monitors Arbcom elections and looks for cheating that year.)
 * Also, there is no "I am allowed to edit war because I am right" rule. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you and JzG are applying reference rules towards external links, and I've been trying to avoid an edit war. ---User:DanTD (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Try harder. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sat Sep 26: Met Fashion Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested images of Via Rail stations


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested images of Via Rail stations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)